audio | David Shoebridgehttp://davidshoebridge.org.au
Greens member of the NSW parliamentTue, 13 Mar 2018 22:58:35 +0000en-AUhourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.4Drug driving laws fail the justice testhttp://davidshoebridge.org.au/2016/01/04/drug-driving-laws-fail-the-justice-test/
http://davidshoebridge.org.au/2016/01/04/drug-driving-laws-fail-the-justice-test/#respondMon, 04 Jan 2016 02:30:24 +0000http://davidshoebridge.org.au/?p=11778With the Government intent on massively increasing the numbers of roadside tests for drugs administered each year by more than 300% attention has rightly been focused on the utter failure of the program to improve road safety.

Radio National’s AM program started the year on 1 January 2016 with consideration of the flawed program:

We are a highly regulated country. If a company here tried to launch a product that was defective in its operation, based on dubious science and caused severe damage to the lives of the people it was supposed to serve there would be swift action, and probably severe penalties.

Unless of course it were a government product. Then the perpetrators would line up to take credit, and spin their misinformation and dodgy statistics to the credulous media.

Meet the Mobile Drug Test.

It has been around for a while but in September National Party politicians Troy Grant (police minister) and Duncan Gay (minister for roads) announced that they would greatly extend the use of this controversial testing technique.

However, the drug test has defects that would trigger watchdog alarms were it not a government scheme. Here are some of them.

It produces false positives.

During ‘Operation Saturation’, which targeted the northern rivers from June 9 to July 6 this year, tests were administered to 1,376 people. Of these, 246 returned positive results, but when they were immediately tested again in a mobile drug lab, 72 – more than a third – were found not to be positive at all (report by Darren Coyne, Echonetdaily, July 10, 2015).

Selective swabs

It misses the worst drugs and it penalises drivers who may be completely unaffected.

The swabs test for cannabis, amphetamine and ecstasy, but do not identify opiates or pharmaceutical medications such as painkillers and anti-depressants, which are known to impair driving skills. They test for minuscule amounts of cannabis, which means that a trace amount in a driver’s body, perhaps days after ingestion, records a positive reading – even though there is no suggestion that the drug is affecting the driver.

It does not test for driving impairment.

You can fail a roadside test not because you are under the influence of drugs, but because of the presence in your body of prohibited molecules, no matter how infinitesimally few they may be. The commander of random drug testing, Inspector Steve Blair, had this to say in an interview with Josh Butler of the Huffington Post (September 12, 2015): ‘It is purely a presence offence. In the roadside test, we’re not saying you’re impaired or off your face. The offence is simply a strict liability. If you have it in your system, that’s it.’

Lifestyle attack

It is therefore not a road safety measure but an attack on lifestyles that people such as Grant and Gay disapprove of. It is hard otherwise to explain why some drivers are stopped more than once for ‘random’ tests, why the police were unwilling to comply with a Greens party freedom of information request for the scientific basis of the tests, and why cocaine users are left out of the net.

According to drug detection expert Tony Graham, incorporating a test for cocaine in the saliva swab would be a simple matter. ‘There is absolutely no reason – if they choose to – why they can’t do it,’ he said (quoted by Dana McCauley, Sydney Morning Herald, November 28, 2015). There is also of course absolutely no reason why police shouldn’t run sniffer dogs through places where bankers, lawyers and brokers are using cocaine, as well as where young people are using cannabis.

This is an expensive campaign. The drug test kits cost about $40 each and at last count there were five mobile drug testing buses in NSW, each costing up to $500,000. Add in the cost of training, laboratory work and all the television ads and it seems odd that the taxpayer should have to foot a bill of this size for activities that are not evidence based.

We know that Australian governments have lately found it hard to frame policies consistent with systematic knowledge – you know, science – but in this case they would not have to look far, as at least one other country has done the research. Greens MLC David Shoebridge pointed out (in theBrisbane Times, October 19, 2015) that the UK’s Wolff Report on Driving under the Influence of Drugsis designed to establish the world’s best practice in tests for drug-impaired driving.

Safe bet

Comparing evidence from Britain and many other countries, the report concludes that the level at which cannabis impairs driving is a blood concentration of five micrograms per litre. It would be a safe bet that most if not all of the convictions recorded against drivers in NSW from random tests concerned levels much lower. The Wolff Report also tabulates the driving impairment thresholds of other drugs, including combinations of drugs with alcohol, and finds the most dangerous to be the valium-type medications. Such prescription drugs are the most often detected in drivers involved in accidents, and the second most likely (after alcohol) to be found where the motorist died in the accident.

Why has our legislation ignored scientific evidence? Probably because mobile drug testing originated in Victoria in 2004 when there was less evidence available (the Wolff Report came out in March 2013). Other states have adopted the Victorian model (and the drug kits that are manufactured in Victoria) without, apparently, giving it any critical thought.

The other reason for avoiding evidence-based legislation is less benign. Right-wing ‘war on drugs’ ideologues are keen to use the police in their attacks on unruly minorities. It is hard to forget how in the eighties Sydney police were flown in to treat Main Arm settlers like terrorists. Citizens who stand up to polluting gas miners and refuse to accept the demonisation of useful herbs certainly create headaches for authorities, and following the Bay’s experience of over-policing during Schoolies this year it might appear that our patch gets more attention than it strictly needs.

Cannabis benefits

Ironically, some parts of government are beginning to see the benefits of medicinal cannabis. The cultural warriors bitterly resist this development, which blurs the simple black-and-white, them-and-us dichotomy they operate under. Even if they are ultimately defeated, there is little doubt that searching for cannabis residue in the bodies of northern rivers drivers will bring them a rich haul of ruined lives. There have already been cases of false positives costing thousands of dollars to fight, of trace drug findings losing people their licences and hence their jobs.

World’s best practice would abandon the ideology of the war on drugs in favour of measures for genuine road safety. It would give us tests that can identify all the drugs of concern, tests that do not produce numerous false positives and tests that measure the actual driving impairment of those being tested.

Until random drug tests achieve that minimum level of practicality and justice, the public should be wary of the motives of the politicians pushing them.

]]>http://davidshoebridge.org.au/2016/01/04/drug-driving-laws-fail-the-justice-test/feed/0Hawkesbury Council fails to come to the Mardi Gras partyhttp://davidshoebridge.org.au/2015/03/05/time-for-a-rethink-as-hawkesbury-mayors-votes-down-the-rainbow-flag/
http://davidshoebridge.org.au/2015/03/05/time-for-a-rethink-as-hawkesbury-mayors-votes-down-the-rainbow-flag/#respondWed, 04 Mar 2015 23:44:18 +0000http://davidshoebridge.org.au/?p=10155At least 11 Sydney local councils have decided to fly the LGBTI Rainbow Flag, but the Hawkesbury City Council last week voted down a motion to fly the flag during the Mardi Gras season. The motion was lost on the casting vote of the Mayor Kim Ford after giving controversial commentary during debate.

Mayor Ford stated during debate that it was unfair to make council staff choose choose which flag would have to be taken down to make room for the rainbow flag saying: “… if you wanna fly the flag then you tell us which one you want to take down, otherwise go to buggery.”

A number of Hawkesbury councillors who spoke against the motion also criticised its “timing.”

Local residents were offended by the council meeting, particularly the Mayor’s comments.

Greens MP and Local Government Spokesperson David Shoebridge said:

“When Sydney councils are flying the flag this year at record rates, it’s disappointing that Hawkesbury Council didn’t want to come to the Mardi Gras party.

“If they think which flag to substitute for a few weeks is a bigger problem than homophobia in Australia, they’ve really got their priorities wrong.

“It’s 2015 – the Mayor’s 1970’s language shows how much we still need to promote acceptance of LGBTI issues.

“The comments of the Mayor, coupled with the decision to use his casting vote to defeat this motion, reflect an insensitivity which is completely out of touch with the community.

“There is politics in flying the rainbow flag, good politics addressing past injustice. Flying the flag during Mardi Gras is precisely the point.

“I hope the Mayor and Council rethink their stance and we see the rainbow flag flying for this and every Mardi Gras to come.”

]]>http://davidshoebridge.org.au/2015/03/05/time-for-a-rethink-as-hawkesbury-mayors-votes-down-the-rainbow-flag/feed/0O’Farrell Attacks Marriagehttp://davidshoebridge.org.au/2012/09/21/ofarrell-attacks-marriage/
http://davidshoebridge.org.au/2012/09/21/ofarrell-attacks-marriage/#respondFri, 21 Sep 2012 03:51:01 +0000http://davidshoebridge.org.au/?p=4515The O’Farrell Government has abolished the age-old common law rule of spousal immunity that says that a person cannot be found guilty of failing to disclose a crime committed by the person’s spouse or partner.

In 2009/10 more than 2.7 million penalty notices were issued by NSW agencies;

In 2009/10 only 28,214 (1.04%) recipients of a penalty notice challenged it in Court;

In 2010/11 some 2.83 million penalty notices were issued for fines totalling $491 million;

In 2009/10 the Local Court imposed only 116,915 penalties of which 53,543 were fines;

The fine for spitting on a railway station ($400) exceeds the fine for endangering peoples’ lives by driving through a red light ($353);

There is no ability to seek an administrative review of a penalty issued by the NSW Police;

Vulnerable groups like juveniles, the mentally ill and indigenous people are unfairly impacted by the penalty notice scheme.

Key recommendations from the review:

Section 53 of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW) should be amended to provide that Part 3 of the Act, except the cautions provisions contained in Division 1A, does not apply to a person younger than 14 years at the time of the offending behaviour.

The Fines Act 1996 (NSW) s 19A should be amended to provide that, in every case where a penalty notice offence is committed, the appropriate officer must consider whether it is appropriate to issue an official caution instead of a penalty notice.

The Attorney General’s Caution Guidelines should be amended to include a statement of principle reinforcing the need to reduce the involvement of vulnerable people in the penalty notice system.

The Attorney General’s Caution Guidelines should be amended to require issuing officers to consider whether the issue of multiple penalty notices in response to a single set of circumstances would unfairly or disproportionately punish a person in a way that does not reflect the totality, seriousness or circumstances of the offending behaviour.

Section 24E(2)(d) of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW) and the Attorney General’s Internal Review Guidelines should be amended to provide that a penalty notice must be withdrawn if the person to whom it was issued has an intellectual disability, a mental illness, a cognitive impairment or is homeless, which was a contributing factor to the commission of an offence or reduced the person’s responsibility for the offending behaviour.

The State Debt Recovery Office should extend, develop, and increase the frequency of its licence restoration activities, especially in rural, regional and remote areas and in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

Prisoners and detainees (whether on remand or under sentence) who meet the eligibility criteria for a work and development order should be able to count voluntary activities and work undertaken while in custody or under supervision as eligible activities for a work and development order.

Mutual obligation activities undertaken for the purposes of Centrelink benefits should be eligible activities for a work and development order.

The exemption in section 120(2) of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW), which provides that the Minister is not required to make public the guidelines on writing off unpaid fines, should be reversed to contain a requirement that these guidelines be made public.

“In the past decade the penalty notice scheme has grown like topsy and there are now more than 7,000 offences on the books.

“There is no consistency in the scheme, with spitting on a railway station carrying a greater penalty that endangering people’s lives by running a red light.

“At present many agencies don’t have any guidelines for issuing penalty notices; some, like the NSW Police, don’t allow for any administrative review of penalty notices once they have been issued.

“There needs to be a standard set of guidelines for penalty notices that is applied by the whole of government.

“Because there is no discretion in the size of a penalty once a notice is issued, they can have an unfair impact on vulnerable groups like juveniles, the mentally ill and indigenous people.

“No child under 14 years of age should be issued with a penalty notice.

“The unfair impact on vulnerable groups must be addressed by greater use of cautions and more accessible administrative review of notices once they are issued.

“There are a range of recommendations in this review that need to be urgently addressed.

“The first cab off the rank must be providing publicly available and whole of government guidelines that force some consistency on the scheme,” Mr Shoebridge said.

]]>http://davidshoebridge.org.au/2012/04/09/penalty-notice-scheme-in-urgent-need-of-reform/feed/0Dual roles legislation targets Sydney Lord Mayorhttp://davidshoebridge.org.au/2012/03/14/dual-roles-legislation-targets-sydney-lord-mayor/
http://davidshoebridge.org.au/2012/03/14/dual-roles-legislation-targets-sydney-lord-mayor/#respondWed, 14 Mar 2012 03:51:34 +0000http://davidshoebridge.org.au/?p=3233The NSW government has announced legislation which will ban sitting MPs from running in local government elections. The true aim of this legislation is to unseat Member for Sydney and Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore, another in what have been constant attacks from Barry O’Farrell in cahoots with the Daily Telegraph.

You can watch this reported on the ABC News here:

Jamie Parker, Greg Piper, Clover Moore and David at the press conference.

The Greens believe that it is not the role of the Parliament to unseat sitting Mayors and MPs via legislation. The voting public of Sydney, not the Premier of NSW, should decide who their representative is.

The Premier disingenuously says this legislation is not aimed at Clover Moore. He wants us to believe it is just a coincidence that of the sitting MPs (including myself) who are local councillors, only Clover has said she is standing again for local council. That’s not a coincidence, Barry, it’s a fix.

Clover Moore has been the state MP for her local area for 24 years, and the Lord Mayor of Sydney for close to eight. If Barry O’Farrell wants to change that, he should get down amongst the community and take Clover on with real policy initiatives to make Sydney better, not try and push her out through imperial trickery.

The Greens will be contesting the local elections, and we want to win. It’s just that we want the election to be fair, not fixed by the Premier of the day.

]]>http://davidshoebridge.org.au/2012/03/14/dual-roles-legislation-targets-sydney-lord-mayor/feed/0David interviewed on ABC regarding Aboriginal Heritagehttp://davidshoebridge.org.au/2011/10/26/david-interviewed-on-abc-regarding-aboriginal-heritage/
http://davidshoebridge.org.au/2011/10/26/david-interviewed-on-abc-regarding-aboriginal-heritage/#commentsTue, 25 Oct 2011 23:38:52 +0000http://davidshoebridge.org.au/?p=2216Following successful Greens amendments to the Heritage Act in NSW Parliament, which will see an expert in Aboriginal Heritage required by law to be on the Heritage Council NSW, David talked to Carol Duncan from ABC Newcastle in an indepth interview about the successful amendments and Aboriginal heritage in general.

]]>http://davidshoebridge.org.au/2011/10/26/david-interviewed-on-abc-regarding-aboriginal-heritage/feed/1Campaign continues to save the Laman Street figshttp://davidshoebridge.org.au/2011/10/18/campaign-continues-to-save-the-laman-street-figs/
http://davidshoebridge.org.au/2011/10/18/campaign-continues-to-save-the-laman-street-figs/#commentsTue, 18 Oct 2011 01:50:14 +0000http://davidshoebridge.org.au/?p=2169The campaign to keep the historic Laman Street figs in Newcastle has become one of the most significant community actions seen in the area in many years.

Yesterday David talked to Carol Duncan on ABC radio yesterday, discussing the history of the issue, where it is now, and the options for solution.

There is a real opportunity for the government to engage in a cooperative approach with Newcastle Council and present a viable solution.

This would be a positive outcome both for the Council, who appear to have locked themselves unwittingly into an unwanted position, and for the broad-based community coalition, who continue to gain respect and support for their dedicated campaign to protect these historic trees.

Lawyers for victims of sexual abuse say the Catholic Church has used a legal technicality to reduce compensation payouts to victims in hundreds of cases across Australia. The church argues its assets are held in a property trust, that can’t be held liable for historical cases of abuse, thus leaving victims with no-one to sue. Lawyers are calling on the church to stop using what’s known at the Ellis defence.

TONY EASTLEY: Lawyers for victims of sexual abuse say the Catholic Church has used a legal technicality to reduce compensation payouts to their clients.

The church argues its assets are held in a property trust that can’t be held liable for historical cases of abuse.

It leaves sexual abuse victims with no-one to sue.

Lawyers are calling on the church to stop using what’s known at the Ellis defence, and there are moves underway in New South Wales to have the defence overturned.

Liz Hobday reports.

LIZ HOBDAY: Lawyer Angela Sdrinis represents victims of historical sexual abuse. She says the Ellis defence has been a factor in about 50 of the cases she’s been involved in.

ANGELA SDRINIS: It’s certainly the case that the church offers less money because of this defence. It is the case that it’s more difficult to negotiate with them. I mean a lawyer’s ultimate weapon is to be able to say to your opponent we’ll see you in court and that’s just not an option in these cases.

LIZ HOBDAY: The church says, in the Melbourne Archdiocese at least, the defence has not led to reduced payouts.

But another lawyer who specialises in abuse claims, Dr Vivian Waller estimates there are hundreds of cases across Australia where victims have had to accept negotiated settlements because the defence means their cases will never make it to court.

VIVIAN WALLER: The Ellis defence is morally bankrupt. I don’t know of any other organisation that would say it is not possible to hold them to account for their actions on the basis that they’re not really an entity, not a legal entity at all and can’t be sued. I find it quite extraordinary and I find it morally bankrupt.

LIZ HOBDAY: The church says the Ellis ruling reflects the High Court’s view, and while the church must comply with its legal obligations, it is equally entitled to legal protection.

The church and its religious orders have long argued that there’s no-one victims can sue in cases of historical abuse – the perpetrators have often died, and those now in positions of power can’t be held responsible.

And the church’s assets – estimated to be worth billions of dollars – are held in various property trusts, which the courts have ruled aren’t liable for the conduct of clergy members.

The Ellis ruling is named for lawyer John Ellis, who finally cemented this defence when he tried to sue the church for the abuse he suffered as a boy.

He lost after taking his case to the High Court in 2007.

JOHN ELLIS: Of course it was for me the end of a personal attempt to get redress from the Sydney Archdiocese of the church but it meant a lot more than that to me and I was gravely disappointed in the outcome.

LIZ HOBDAY: John Ellis has represented many other victims in historical cases, and says the defence established in his own case is frequently used.

JOHN ELLIS: It’s always implied as a read between the lines. I have had lawyers for religious orders sit across the table from me and say well, there is absolutely no liability in this matter.

LIZ HOBDAY: Dr Waller is calling on the church and its religious orders to stop relying on the Ellis ruling.

VIVIAN WALLER: And it’s about time that the different parts of the Catholic Church took some kind of moral responsibility for their actions and stopped hiding behind technical legal defences and stopped trying to pretend that they don’t exist. I mean nothing could be more ludicrous.

LIZ HOBDAY: New South Wales Greens MP David Shoebridge introduced a bill to Parliament earlier this month, to try to overturn the defence in that state.

But he’s worried the major parties won’t back the bill.

DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Well there is some concern that it won’t get support because of the political influence the Catholic Church has here in New South Wales politics but that being said there are people of goodwill on this issue from all sides of politics.

Eddie Zananiri, a strong advocate for Palestinian rights, and Izzat Abdul Hadi, the head of the General Delegation of Palestine to Australia and New Zealand and Ambassador to East Timor, Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu, both addressed members of the public on the need for Palestinian recognition within the UN.